Justice will never give up. There's no escaping. Since there's no accusation that doesn't have some grain of truth, the accusation is enough to prove guilt. Besides, prosecuting and tracking innocent people would be unfair, so everyone we track and prosecute must be guilty; surely you don't think we're anything other than unscrupulously fair, right? I mean, thinking like that is a sure sign of disloyalty and latent terroristic intent.

No. Richelieu meant that his Inquisition was capable of finding "heresy" within any six lines of any man's speech. They did not have to forge anything, merely "see" what they read with a sufficient fervor via a sufficiently fanatical eye of a religious zealot. The torture of the suspect, or his family, was guaranteed extract a signed "confession" later.

It is no coincidence that the main villain in Dumas' books is an evil religious nut, supported by a blood-thirsty, nearly all-powerful (at the time) fanatic

This is true for almost all prosecutors as well. The assumption is guilty until proven innocent, and even then a formal protest must be made. Their job is to find guilt. Those who are elected or hired by elected officials have an interest in finding everyone guilty, because if you "lose" a case (someone is found to not be guilty) then you are being soft on crime or not effective enough and are in danger of losing your job. Even then it's better in their eyes to have at least tried to convict one than to

In the United States Legal system, you get charged, thrown in jail, and then you have to post bond and hire a lawyer (or risk defending yourself) to get the charges dropped if you are innocent. If you are guilty, you get charged, thrown in jail, and you post bond, your conviction depends on the size of your wallet and what kind of legal defense you can get. OJ Simpson is a classic example, there are countless others.

Here's the thing... the CIA, NSA, FBI are all getting massive amounts of funding from the

Innocent until proven guilty inversed to the extreme: guilty until proven completely, absolutely, with a cherry on top innocent?

You erroneously equate standards used to put a person in prison with standards used to watch a person. For many years there was no evidence to convict Al Capone of being a gangster but there was a "reasonable suspicion" that led to Al and his minions being observed. You seem to be implying such observations were illegitimate.

That said, are there truly innocent (legally not guilty != innocent) people unjustly on the list? I'm sure there are. Are there other bureaucratic or administrative blunders? I'm sur

You make a very good point, that it's not so much the standards of getting people on to this list which is the problem. The problem is how supposedly 'innocent' people are treated. Preventing a person from flying should only happen when you have sufficient evidence to indicate that they intend on doing something. That amount of evidence should then be used to get them convicted, rather than taking the half-assed measure of putting them on a no-fly list.

Put it in the Libertarian framework. The government stepping in to prevent a person previously suspected of something, but not currently a suspect in any crime, from completing a contract with another entity. The government is blocking two willing participants from engaging in trade, with no evidence that a crime was even committed, let alone anyone there was involved in the unknown crime. Libertarians everywhere should be up in arms to get the government out of this free enterprise.

I understand your sentiment and I agree to a certain point. Getting put on a no-fly list should not be done in a casual manner, however I don't think the evidentiary requirement should approach that required for conviction. For example if someone attended certain types of training camps in somalia, yemen or the pakistani tribal areas I am fine with not allowing that person to get on a plane bound for the US. There are actions that are legal yet sufficiently suspicious or undesirable that disallowing certain

Actually, Constitutionally, not guilty == innocent. Watching someone forever for the slightest slip-up defies that Constitutional mandate. Watching someone even after solid evidence actually demonstrates their innocence (as opposed to merely failing to establish guilt or even failing to provide enough evidence to even attempt to establish guilt) can only be the result of irrationality.

They are actually in paranoid schizophrenic territory: "I know A is out to get me! Don't you see the way he wears that red t

"Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution
Innocent Until Proven Guilty
First, it should be pointed out that if you did it, you're guilty, no matter what. So you're not innocent unless you're truly innocent. However, our system presumes innocence, which means that legally speaking, even the obviously guilty are treated as though they are innocent, until they are proven otherwise.
The concept of the presumption of innocence is one of the most ba

The presumption of innocence is neatly wrapped up in the Amendments to the Constitution and the "due process" incorporated by reference. It is connected to such a degree that you cannot evade innocent until proven guilty without violating the Constitution.

The presumption of innocence pertains to depriving a person of liberty or property. It obviously does not restrict the government from observing a person. Every person of interest is investigated while in the presumed innocent state.

Which Constitution are you talking about? I'm not familiar with the "dude has to be proven guilty before we can get the evidence to prove dude's guilt" clause in the US Constitution. Hint: the Constitution you wrote in fifth grade Civics doesn't really count.

Clue: Investigating and observing a person is part of that due process. The US Constitution merely puts some restrictions on that investigation. Compelling a person to testify against themselves and having probable cause (a standard well short of proof) before searching a home are notable examples. Observing their public activities, like traveling, and interviewing them in a public space, like in the airport, are allowed.

Sure. However, it also calls for the investigation and observation to end once it fails to demonstrate guilt, such as when it goes to court and there uis a finding of not guilty or when charges are dropped due to insufficient evidence.

At some point, repeated compulsory interviews move from a legitimate tool of investigation supported by probable cause to a simple extralegal harassment.

You must be new here, but have you actually ever read the Bill of Rights? Here's what you're presumably referring to: "No person shall [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

Ah, sweet liberty, which means all things to all readers. Of course, in the original Klingon, it meant nothing more than being safe from incarceration, but doubtless you interpret it to mean liberty to scream "fire!" while being ass spelunked by your gay llama husband in the business class secti

Don't be silly. Why DON'T you believe that being either banned from air travel or flagged for extra gate rape AND for extra checking at any traffic stop, etc might be considered a deprivation of liberty? It's a lot like being on probation, only you were never found guilty of anything.

I believe that being found not guilty of a particular offense makes further watching for that very same offense problematic. This isn't the littering, jay walking, petty theft and terrorism watchlist, now is it? If you weren't

It is far worse than that. Your 'name' not you is innocent until proven guilty. Pay careful attention to that fact that it is 'names' on a watch list not persons. If you share the same name you come under the same scrutiny.

I could be the underlying reality is, that how they treat people who get pulled up by this illegal (guilty until proven, whoops oh wait, guilty forever regardless) watch list has more to do with how common the name is, rather than any real evidence ie if too many people complain too of

That information shouldn't be available to police officers who are running people's plates, etc., because it will subject them to additional scrutiny. The presumption of innocence is something that's been badly eroded thanks to this bullsh*t about terrorism. Frankly, we could have a 9/11 every month and still not equal the number of deaths due to drunk driving -- and we don't have a 'suspected drunk driver' watch list. When the government has lists for everything that has a greater loss of life and property, then we can talk about 'terrorism'.

so after two DWI's they put a W in front of the number? here we just revoke the licence (for 1year for first office for life after second)

Hmm. So which is better? Assume that someone who has done something twice will be guilty of the same thing for the rest of his life and never let him drive again? Or let people around him know that he's been convicted of something twice so they can keep an eye on him and will be more likely to report suspicious driving (crossing the center line, crossing the fog line, sudden changes in speed, etc) but allow him to otherwise drive a car?

You know the W isn't for the cops, it is for the public. The cops have

Right but DWI is completely and utterly avoidable. I understand the logic, first time was a bad decision on the drivers part - he has a year to learn from his mistakes. Second shows they don't care for the law and will do it anyways - so you take the privilege of driving away.

I'm of the mind that driving on public roads is a privilege to be earned via trust, not a right. If someone can't be trusted to follow the basics of motor vehicle safety they are show a disregard to the safety of others and putting

Unlike the terrorist watch list, at least the whiskey plates only happen after TWO actual convictions. Due process of law and an actual guilty finding, twice over.

The watch list just requires that some paranoid somewhere doesn't like the look of you. It would be as if you got whiskey plates because any cop anywhere thinks you look like you might like to party too much. You can't get rid of them even if a medical test shows you have never taken a drink in your life.

Frankly, we could have a 9/11 every month and still not equal the number of deaths due to drunk driving

You are assuming that the weapons of the bad guys would not be upgraded beyond a fuel ladened jet.

You are assuming that the government would be able to stop it in any event.

Every act of "terror" thwarted since 9/11 has been due to ordinary citizens observing, and in many cases, acting. Your government overlords have done nothing but conditioned you unreasonable searches and unconstitutional "watch lists" are reasonable.

Frankly, we could have a 9/11 every month and still not equal the number of deaths due to drunk driving

You are assuming that the weapons of the bad guys would not be upgraded beyond a fuel ladened jet.

You are assuming that the government would be able to stop it in any event.
Every act of "terror" thwarted since 9/11 has been due to ordinary citizens observing, and in many cases, acting. Your government overlords have done nothing but conditioned you unreasonable searches and unconstitutional "watch lists" are reasonable.

Two non-law enforcement foilings may be understating things, or maybe their definition of terrorism requires an international component. I'm thinking of a times square vendor who tipped off police to a domestic nutcase. In any case there are clea

I'd support normal police having access to the Terror Watch List for traffic stops, if it wasn't so stupidly bloated and full of false positives. If it was a cleaner list, full of Actual persons of interest, you'd kick yourselves if the police issued some guy a traffic citation while he was wanted, and later he blew someone up.

I have to agree with what the FBI does. Courts declare that there is no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. That is, if you think someone is probably guilty, but you have a reasonable doubt, you let him go.

The FBI should keep people on the watch list if they think he/she is probably guilty, even if they have a reasonable doubt about his guilt.

That said, the watch list as is, is worthless. Too many names - particularly without pictures or at least age/gender/description - are worse than not enough.

Most curtailment of rights without the limits of due process--including the due process of acquittal--is contrary to the Constitution. Some "curtailment" has been historically tolerated, and usually this type of debasement of Constitutional protections has been in the interests of "public safety" or "national security", so this looks like a winning combination unless some judge has the courage to call a spade an implement with which to bury civil and human rights.

Agent Rogersz: Good evening, Otto. This is Agent Rogersz. I'm going to ask you a few questions. Since time is short and you may lie, I'm going to have to torture you. But I want you to know, it isn't personal.

Otto: This isn't really necessary. I'll tell you anything you want to know.

And the Constitution says you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Do you recommend we scrap that old rag?

Yes he does. But only for "those", you know, "other", dangerous people with dangerous ideas, who dress differently. And smell funny. Or speak some suspicious language. Actually, many like him believe that "those people" should be all in camps, or at least deported to Africa somewhere, for their own safety, naturally!

It is codified within it's amendments but not in those exact words. Hint, "due process" includes a presumption of innocence. Alas, some people are unable to comprehend paraphrase and summary. A few of those appear to have been raised by wolves and gain some sort of boost to their pathetic ego by calling people things like "fucktard".

I must conclude that your understanding of the Constitution is restricted to a shallow literal reading of the words.

Comments like yours just piss me off. Not because there isnt perhaps some merit to your sentiment, or that you could have dragged a meaningful point out of your post; no, its the fact that you were unable to make a point without the most extreme kinds of hyperbole, which just drags the entire conversation down.

Not to mention how insulting it is for people in one of the freer examples of society in human history complaining that they have NO rights. If you had "no rights", you wouldnt be on slashdot complain

The police forces work for the executive branches of government. They investigate and suspect people and when they feel they have enough evidence to make a conviction, they arrest and submit their case (and the suspect(s)) to another branch of government for trial.

I see no reason why, once processed by this other branch of government, the police forces need to stop being suspicious and watchful.

That said, it is highly inappropriate that there are no checks and balances against these government actions and

The police forces work for the executive branches of government. They investigate and suspect people and when they feel they have enough evidence to make a conviction, they arrest and submit their case (and the suspect(s)) to another branch of government for trial.

Where they make statements designed to obtain a conviction (regardless of the truth of such statements), which are accepted unquestioningly over the testimony of others, because the police wear snazzy uniforms and can lie with a straight face.

Because their suspicions were found to be unwarranted by that other branch or in some cases, their own additional evidence convinced them that they couldn't win in court. If you can be suspected forever in spite of evidence and reason to the contrary and if that suspicion can have real consequences (like being barred from flying or marked for extra gate rape) then it defies the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

If the Constitution is null and void, then so is the United States and the FBI.

The US government has kept a list of 'undesirables' for decades, going far back beyond the current abusive relationship with terrorism accusations. They just used to call it the Red List, because it was originally intended to keep commies out.

My Discovery of America [wikimedia.org] is probably my favourite story of this persistent debacle-- and its events occurred in 1985, not 2011!

If someone was put on a list, charged with crimes and then cleared I would consider that person to be a risk for being a terrorist. They're probably pretty cross with the US of A after going through all that and might try to get revenge.

If a mobster gets a not guilty verdict at a trial, does the FBI have to destroy their dossier on him? Of course not. It's their job to keep tabs on people they consider dangerous. If a terrorist gets a not guilty verdict on the grounds that the prosecution's case was based on illegally obtained information, then the FBI should absolutely keep him on the watch list.

It is good that people can't be locked up unless proven guilty of a crime, even if those people have associated with known terrorist groups.

Having had a few clearances and background checks in my past, I'm on a few lists so don't worry. I'm just not on any of the "black" lists..

Look, the government has invested billions in information intelligence and even what I type right now is probably going through some filters looking for keywords. You just don't know about it *now* but it'll come out in a story 10 years from now. That's how governments work, what you don't know won't hurt you. Trust us but if we come knocking on your door at night, t

That would be wrong, but is that what is happening? The situation the OP proposed is entirely reasonable, the situation you propose is not. Unless we know which is nearer to what is actually happening we can't very well judge if it's wrong or not.

Well, let's see. Being acquitted isn't enough and having the charges dismissed (meaning the evidence is so weak that it's not worth a trial) isn't enough. It seems questionable if anything is enough to get off the list.

And what if I call your name in as a faulty tip, and the tip is cleared as bogus,...

Then the name should be removed from the list.

On the other hand, if a person did indeed do nothing more than attend "summer camp" in somalia, yemen or the pakistani tribal regions then they probably should be on a list. How to treat people on that list is an entirely different discussion.

Just because you've been cleared or acquitted doesn't mean you'll think about becoming a terrorist in the future! We're just keeping the rest of thepublic safe from your future impure thoughts!

If you look at all those detainees released from GitMo, [cnn.com] you'll find a lot of them, 25%, have wound up being captured or KiAs so it stands to the governments backward logic that once you're on the list, you stay on the list.

If you look at all those detainees released from GitMo, [cnn.com] you'll find a lot of them, 25%, have wound up being captured or KiAs so it stands to the governments backward logic that once you're on the list, you stay on the list.

Conversely, we can conclude that 75% of them did nothing but happen to be standing in the wrong place at the wrong time? Not counting the illegally detailed child soldiers like Omar Kadr, of course.

They were all guilty and that kid I know has a suspected background of selling Lemonade to Al Qaida. Do I accept that our government has suspended the rights of GitMo detainees, no, it's wrong but has the current administration done anything about it? Close it in a year? Nope, not done. What about all those trials that Holder said were going to be done of the detainees? Oh wait, that flopped too so while GitMo is an abomination it's going to take a long time to straighten it out and nobody in the Federa

As official spokesman for the FBI, I wish to inform you that we have implemented a new opt-out program to address your concerns. If you wish to opt out of the watch list, simply let us know and we will remove you from it. Simple, huh?

But we won't stop there. Want to be taken off our list of people who were once on the watch list? No problem! Just say the word.

But maybe that's not enough. Maybe you want to get taken off the list of people who were once on the list of people who were on the watch list. Seems

It's nice to know this. Eventually we'll all be on the list, and then it'll just formalize what's been the case all along. And hey added bonus then when Wikileaks publishes the list, we all can tell who the truly dangerous people are because they're the only ones with the influence to not be on the list.

During the French revolution you could be "denounced" then beheaded.During the 1917 Russian revolution you could be "denounced" then shot or tortured, then shot.During Stalin's pogroms everybody was denouncing everybody else, they were all shot.The Nazi's turned government sponsored murder into a form of industry.

Why do you think that older people who have a good grasp of history say that this (Homeland/Security/Terrorism theater) can only lead to Interment camps and execution squads?

The one thing that I love about these articles is that they always bring out the paranoids who believe that we are days away from living in a totalitarian state simply because they have studied certain chapters in their history books and ignored others.

Except the USA has the Highest percentage of it's population in prison than Any other nation, including Iran, China, Russia, or any other Dictatorship or totalitarian government Anywhere. And protest freely allowed? Tell that to the people in the Wall Street protests who were maced while simply standing there, and that's just one example from the most recent lot of protests.

The USA is not a police state. However, these stories are concerning because of the direction they suggest. Not that dodgy government watchlists are new or somehow confined to the US, but they show what can happen when law enforcement powers are not kept in check.

The biggest problem with these sorts of lists is because there are no working checks or balances, they are very easily abused for political intimidation. Don't think that happens? Of course it happens [dailykos.com]. Democracies are based on the assumption that i

We have you right where we want you, meek and scared. Please leave your Liberty at the door, walk right in, get in queue over there, we'll give you your ID number and your occupational specialty. Then get in that line and we'll screen you with your urine sample to determine whether or not you use any substances that may somehow render your unable to work in our eyes.

Well, I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm freeJust as long as I toe the party line, and carry my IDSo won't you kneel down next to me, so we can begin to pray?'Cause there ain't no doubt we've lost this land - God help the USA!

Local police have forever been retaining records for people that have been detained but found not to be involved, either by investigators or actual court. ( even random traffic stops, other than those invasive slippery slope seat-belt 'enforcement' road blocks, and i even wonder about who's taking pictures of license plates )

They retain in your record statements, pictures, prints, even DNA in many cases.